GMPhotography wrote:
That maybe a deal breaker for some
I'm still not sure the GM makes a ton of sense for some folks
Depends on what you're used to shooting with. Once you've gotten your hands and the likes the CV, Loxia, Samyang lenses....and lenses like the FE55, your whole perspective of compact lenses kinda changes. The beauty of the Sigma i lenses is that you get the same carrying and shooting experience of CV type glass, but with AF, and without making compromises on rendering and IQ. The downside of course is being 'only' F2.
I agree if your not heart broken on not having a 1.4 than this Sigma makes a lot of sense. I love 1.4 glass but as I see the 3 lenses together CV,Sony and this maybe that second 35 might be the Sigma 1.4.
I still have the CV on order. First time we got 3 real 35 contenders
I agree with the sentiment about the handling, ergonomics and IQ with the Sigma 35/2. It balances nicely on the A7C. I love the smoothness of the bokeh and the sharpness is good enough for me. I posted some initial shots taken with the 35/2 yesterday on the Sigma i images thread and I do not need anything faster than F2.
I have owned faster (24/1.4, CV40/1.2, 50/1.4) and sold them once I realized I rarely used them wide-open.
offtraildog wrote:
I agree with the sentiment about the handling, ergonomics and IQ with the Sigma 35/2. It balances nicely on the A7C. I love the smoothness of the bokeh and the sharpness is good enough for me. I posted some initial shots taken with the 35/2 yesterday on the Sigma i images thread and I do not need anything faster than F2.
I have owned faster (24/1.4, CV40/1.2, 50/1.4) and sold them once I realized I rarely used them wide-open.
I rarely shoot the CV40 wide open and often stop the Sigma 35 f1.2 down. DOF is too narrow on the subject and the degree of blur on the background is not much different. With these wide-ish FOV lenses, you aren't really going to obliterate the background and the quality of blur is really what matters most.
Where f1.4 does matter is for the light gathering when lighting is not ideal...things like weddings where you're shooting in low-light indoors and really don't want noise. In these cases, the difference between ISO 3,200 and ISO 6,400 start to matter. If you're only busting out the camera when the light is good, then F2 is fine.
For me my life is changing. I’m still shooting but commercial work has really died off. As a commercial shooter unfortunately I have a lot of folks in this boat with me. It sucks but I’m becoming fine with this retirement thought. Honestly it bugged me through most of this pandemic. More important is my needs have really changed too. I have a nice little kit and I have the ability to rent within the hour. Power in that one as I can rent almost anything. So owning a 1.4 is not the biggest need. The Sony I’m not thrilled about the money. I’m at less than a grand I’m okay with after that I question my needs and wants more
Here the little stinger is I really like this lens. And I’m actually happy with it
Covid killed photography business for me too so my focus had been legitimately shooting for enjoyment. Compact gear had been a lot of fun. Everyone went nuts over the a1, but the a7c had been my favorite release in the last 12 months. Sigma i lenses right up my alley right now.
That said, I coudlnt resist giving the 35GM a go. 35i isn't going anywhere. Mostly I retested in now it stacks up against the BIGma
Very nice pair. I'm sure that 35 GM is a fine lens, but I am going to stick with the i35. I have no problem giving up a stop for the smaller form factor, build/styling, and rendering at a very reasonable price. Leaves enough money to get the i65 which pairs up perfectly IMO for a kit that I don't mind taking with me.
Man. First world problems, but just got the 35gm and it’s a great lens but not sure worth double the price of the 35i. I have the 65i and blown away at how compact and sharp it is. I’m curious, if the 35i is just as good as the 65 it makes me wonder if I should return the GM for the 35i. Moving overseas so a lighter kit wouldn’t be a bad idea. It’s great to have these many choices.
Sony 20G, Sigma 35i, 65i, Sony 100-400 with a 1.4x TC. I feel very complete.
I wish the 35i can be a just a tad slimmer. Not sure if you can shrink more size by taking away the AF/MF button, etc. I would also prefer to have a more uniform body like the Sony G lenses. The groovy exterior is bit much.
If one mostly photographs landscapes and streets, and just want the AF for some people photographs once in a while, the f/2 lenses make more sense over the f/1.4 lenses. But it's tough giving up f/1.4, as they can be had for just a few hundred bucks more (at least the Sigma options, which already are outstanding wide open on the a7R IV). I currenly own the 85 DN and was sure that I was going to pair it with an upcoming 35 f/1.4 DN. But I'm not so sure if it's worth the bulk and size when I rarely need f/1.4, just as many here don't. Then there are the CV lenses that compliment the landscape kit and are overall just pleasing to use due to mechanical perfection and experience, rendition and image quality, but they make it harder to justify the f/2 DNs and vice versa. But at this point, it's also hard to justify lenses like the 35 and 65 APOs if one also owns the 35 and 65 f/2 DNs, which are very close at landscape apertures. On the extremes, I would go for 12/14-24 and 100-400 zooms. It makes up a bit of an odd landscapes/city scapes kit with GM zooms (12-24 and 100-400), 1 CV (35 APO) and 1 DN (65 DN). I will just turn the DN in to MF and call it a day. The 35 APO will be an exception, whereas the 65 APO can go for the DN.
gordec wrote:
Sony 20G, Sigma 35i, 65i, Sony 100-400 with a 1.4x TC. I feel very complete.
I wish the 35i can be a just a tad slimmer. Not sure if you can shrink more size by taking away the AF/MF button, etc. I would also prefer to have a more uniform body like the Sony G lenses. The groovy exterior is bit much.
I just put together a very similar kit- Sony 20G, Sigma 35i, 65i, 105 Macro Art and 100-400 C.
Raiser6 wrote:
Man. First world problems, but just got the 35gm and it’s a great lens but not sure worth double the price of the 35i. I have the 65i and blown away at how compact and sharp it is. I’m curious, if the 35i is just as good as the 65 it makes me wonder if I should return the GM for the 35i. Moving overseas so a lighter kit wouldn’t be a bad idea. It’s great to have these many choices.
This video put this issue into perspective and compares the i series with other more expensive glass-
Maybe somebody can explain a little about this? Is it about bad quality control or a bad quality policy? Is it about bad karma or are all the 35i lenses like this? Why at one side only - is that a result from a polishing machine in need of some adjustment?
---
I have this strange experience from trying three different Sigma 35i lenses now: None of they manage to deliver a sharp image of a painting in the size 1.0x0.8 meters.
Lens No.1 was bad at the right half of the image, the second copy was better but not good. At that point I thought I should give up. Reading the Lenstip review told me their copy probably was something like the two I had tried. If true maybe all the 35i lenses are like this? Can't be right? Maybe it was about bad luck only. Here I was recommended to make a third try.
OK, one shouldn't give up! Alas, the third copy turned out to be the worst one of them all.
One of the first fast test shots i do when buying a new lens is to shoot a 80 cm wide shelf where seven small crops from the ancient USAF test chart are sitting permanently. That says something about me of course. But wth, shouldn't a lens advertised with a flat nice MTF curve allow me to get a sharp picture of a 80 cm wide bookshelf? Or a painting.
So, I have USAF charts spread from left to right border with all these lenses.
EDIT April 25 - all images/charts are moved to an updated post (page 19, post 5)
I can hear some of you.... don't shoot test charts, take images! Yeah, for sure, I do that. However, I want to know my gear and a quick three or four part test taking a total of less than half an hour lets me know if the lens is any good or not. And, yes, I sometimes need to take images of paintings among all the other things I'm interested in.
I think copy three is the same as the first two ones and then with some sideways tilt added.
Are the results above any good? No. Here they are again but compared to the Samyang AF35 F1.8. The SY35 has a little lower contrast but a higher and more uniform resolving power than the 35i. Like this when compared in the same graph:
EDIT April 25 - all images/charts are moved to an updated post (page 19, post 5)
As mentioned the Samyang contrast, to my eyes, is a notch lower but the result is way better than the Sigmas (one averaged black curve only now).
And finally, for you wanting to see it all at the same time:
EDIT April 25: all images/charts are moved to an updated post (page 19, post 5)
Remember this is about eye-balling, USAF charts are representing a quite crude way to judge "sharpness" and a value can vary from one day to another depending on my mode. Yoyr result will vary and probably be better.
USAF charts do however offer a very fast and efficient way to discover faults some faults with a lens. I want my lenses to be reasonably sharp from border to border. I'm not as concerned about the corners when shooting with a lens wide open (and most of the time I'm not concerned at all).
The lenses seemed to work at longer distances, I liked the haptics (far better than the 35GM), the weight was OK and so on. But the darn thing has to be able to make for a sharp image when at about 1 meter away from a flat surface.
The Sigmas had the following serial numbers: 5528xxxx, 5530xxxx and 5531xxxx.
Jonas B wrote:
Maybe somebody can explain a little about this? Is it about bad quality control or a bad quality policy? Is it about bad karma or are all the 35i lenses like this? Why at one side only - is that a result from a polishing machine in need of some adjustment?
Some thoughts - it doesn't explain why the other manufacturers lenses look good and the Sigma's are all tilted on one side, but the consistent tilt is more likely a problem with the setup in my opinion than a consistent error in all the Sigma lenses.
How do you align the camera with the shelf to make sure it is perpendicular? Small deviations from perfectly square can have a big effect on sharpness due to depth-of-field, especially so close to the target. That is why labs have a permanent setup and most hobbyists check centering at infinity. If you have a permanent setup, did you maybe accidentally shift it after testing the other lenses?
It's also possible your camera's mount has some tilt, you could try to focus the lens and then rotate the lens as if you were to take it off the camera while making sure it stays on the camera (that'd disconnect the electronic contacts). If it's the lens, then the region of softness should move, otherwise it's the camera lens-mount or camera/shelf alignment.
Generally though, the Sigma 35/2 is probably not the lens for close-focus sharpness - they made different trade-offs here. The upcoming Sigma 35/1.4 DN will probably do better.
